Miscarriage after treatment: Consumer court holds doctor guilty of medical negligence, slaps Rs 9 lakh compensation

Visakhapatnam: Holding a doctor liable for medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a pregnant woman suffered a miscarriage, the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Andhra Pradesh directed the doctor to pay Rs 9 lakh in compensation.

The Commission rejected the doctor's defence after finding that no supporting medical documents had been produced to substantiate the allegations that the patient had failed to follow medical advice during her pregnancy.

As reported by The Indian Express, the bench comprising President Gudla Tanuja and members Varri Krishna Murthy and Rahimunnisa Begum passed the order on October 21, 2026, while hearing a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that negligent treatment had resulted in the loss of her unborn child.

According to the complaint, the woman had been receiving treatment during her pregnancy and was admitted to the hospital from February 21 to February 23, 2024. She was subsequently admitted again on March 1, 2024.

The complainant submitted that she had been regularly visiting the hospital for treatment and was expected to deliver her baby on July 30, 2024.

However, on March 9, 2024, her condition reportedly deteriorated following heavy bleeding, and she suffered a miscarriage at approximately 12.30 pm.

She alleged that the miscarriage occurred due to negligence on the part of the treating doctor. The woman further stated that she had spent approximately Rs 1.60 lakh towards medical treatment.

Following the incident, she issued a legal notice to the doctor. However, after receiving no response, she approached the District Consumer Commission seeking compensation.

Contesting the allegations, counsel appearing for the doctor submitted that the patient had been informed about the risks associated with her pregnancy and advised to take necessary precautions.

The doctor maintained that the pregnancy was considered a "precious pregnancy" because the woman was above 30 years of age.

According to the defence, an ultrasound examination conducted on February 22, 2024, indicated that a blood clot, which had posed a threat to the pregnancy, had stabilised.

Despite this, the patient was allegedly dissatisfied with the hospital environment and chose to get discharged. The doctor claimed that she had been advised to return for follow-up within 48 hours but failed to comply.

The doctor's counsel further submitted that the patient was examined again on March 2, 2024, and advised admission after being diagnosed with a threatened miscarriage.

It was argued that the doctor had instructed the patient to lie on her left side to optimise blood supply because of her condition. However, the patient allegedly continued sitting upright, stating that she was more comfortable in that position.

The defence maintained that the patient had failed to follow medical instructions despite being informed about the risks.

After examining the submissions, the Commission was not convinced by the doctor's explanation.

It observed that although several allegations had been made regarding the patient's alleged non-compliance with medical advice, the doctor had not produced documentary evidence supporting those claims.

The Commission held that merely denying the complainant's allegations in writing was insufficient to establish the defence.

Emphasising the responsibilities of medical practitioners while treating pregnant women, the Commission cautioned against unfair practices in maternity care.

"The opposite party (the doctor) is cautioned not to resort to unfair methodology towards expectant mothers, as their life is 'one body with twin lives' and will have an impact not only on the personal life of the patient who is the prospective mother, but on their family, as well as on the entire social fabric of society," the Commission observed.

The bench further noted that the loss suffered by the woman could not be adequately measured in monetary terms, considering the physical and emotional consequences of the miscarriage.

While discussing the professional obligations of doctors, the Commission remarked that "a healer should never be a dealer" and stressed the importance of responsible medical care.

The Commission concluded that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the pain, mental agony and suffering arising from the treatment and subsequent loss of pregnancy.

Holding the doctor guilty of medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission directed her to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs 9 lakh to the woman.

The district commission cautioned hospitals to be careful in their duties, as the consequences could be fatal not only for the patient but also for the institution's reputation, leaving a permanent "blood mark" on the record of the medical fraternity, adds the Indian Express.